Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 40

Thread: How Was Princess Leia Able to Remember Her Mother in Return of the Jedi?

  1. #11
    ^^^ Mistakes… or revisions… ??? Hard to tell with George— and I’m always under the impression he can’t tell the difference LOL

    I’ve dismissed AOTC and ROTS as tacky EU ramblings— and not relevant to the saga.

    And as much as TPM is an absolutely colossal bore of a movie, I adore it still for other reasons, and it’s a worthy addition to the saga: It’s not a mess like the other 2 prequels. And TPM is far removed enough from the events of the OT that it doesn’t contradict, harm or drag down the established canon. It actually enhances AGFFA in scope and lore.

    Leia knew she was adopted as long as she could remember (this is expended upon in the novelization). That’s why Luke asked if she had memories of her “real” mother— and not just her mother. People will defend the incompetence of the Prequel to their death it seems, just check out the Attack Of The Clones is a great Star Wars Movie! thread…

    (BTW, George didn’t exactly had complete control with ANH; it was a careful collaboration with extremely talented individuals. Cobalt, and others would know a lot more about that history than I could ever be interested in, have posted invaluable insights to the development of that film. But there’s no hiding the fact that ANH was a strong collaborative effort.)
    Last edited by farmer; 12-09-2018 at 01:48 PM.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by farmer View Post
    I’ve dismissed AOTC and ROTS as tacky EU ramblings— and not relevant to the saga.


    Too true! So do I! That’s why I stand by the OT the most.

    Quote Originally Posted by farmer View Post
    (BTW, George didn’t exactly had complete control with ANH; it was a careful collaboration with extremely talented individuals. Cobalt, and others would know a lot more about that history than I could ever be interested in, have posted invaluable insights to the development of that film. But there’s no hiding the fact that ANH was a strong collaborative effort.)
    Ah, yes. It was the first one. I imagine it was better because he had help.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by slaveleiafan123 View Post
    Wow! So it was George Lucas’ mistake? I should have known! All the ones that Lucas directs are a disappointment, although I am not sure I can say the same about episode 4, (ANH), the first one to ever come out in 1977. That one was his and it was good!

    You are so right, farmer! He should have had a competent team that paid attention to detail rather than a bunch of “yes” men!

    I have never read any of the novelizations! That story about Padme and Leia hiding in a chest sounds far more interesting and is more believable than her dying giving birth to Leia!

    I always thought excellent memory was one of Leia’s Jedi powers and since she is unaware of how to use the force like Luke, it’s a power she just assumes is something she naturally has. That explanation wouldn’t make much sense though...and really...what sort of Jedi power is excellent memory going to achieve really?

    I just wish there was a better explanation than George Lucas’ carelessness!

    My friend suggested that Leia didn’t know she was adopted at all...and thought that her adoptive mother, who also died when she was young, was her real mother! My friend said he read somewhere that the reason Leia was a princess is because her adoptive mother was a queen, and because this queen died when she was a little girl, she was therefore mostly raised by her adoptive father Bail Organa. And Senator Organa was never dubbed a king despite being married to a queen.

    That’s what my friend said.
    That's really my interpretation as well. Leia was remembering her adopted mother in Alderan.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by slaveleiafan123 View Post
    I do agree with that statement,but can’t George Lucas pay attention to detail more.
    I remember.

    Never aplogize for asking a question however.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Internets View Post
    One question I have is that Vader only learned of Leia in ROTJ... so when did he learn of Luke? He doesn't seem surprised when the Emperor says "the son of Skywalker..." in Empire.
    I believe that it was "alluded" to after ANH, with the destruction of the DS. Likely a lot of off-screen stuff, or EU happened resulting in Vader's behavior/knowledge of Luke.
    Looking for:R3-H17, L3-37
    Sale List, Trade List, Non SW trades & Feedback

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterfett View Post
    I believe that it was "alluded" to after ANH, with the destruction of the DS. Likely a lot of off-screen stuff, or EU happened resulting in Vader's behavior/knowledge of Luke.
    I agree with masterfett. Vader knew about Luke relatively early!

  7. #17
    it's in the text scroll at the beginning of the movie. in Giant Yellow Letters:
    "the Evil Lord Darth Vader is obsessed with finding Young Skywalker".

    also: he tells General Veers (re: Hoth):
    "....THAT is the system -- the Rebels are THERE -- and I'm sure Skywalker is with them."

    (so: it's ALSO in the actual dialog of the film itself -- Vader knows about Skywalker -- BEFORE the events of ESB.)




    later, in 1997, GL tried to shoe-horn a 'special edition' moment, when Holo-Palps tells vader:
    "I have no doubt this Boy is the offspring of Anakin Skywalker"


    and Vader goes "WHUT..!? HoW CaN ThiS BE..!?", like he's hearing this info for the Very First Time.
    ^^ (apparently, GL didn't watch the first half of Kirshner's Movie, before he started making 'changes' to it) (oops!)

    Quote Originally Posted by farmer View Post
    ^^^ Mistakes… or revisions… ??? Hard to tell with George— and I’m always under the impression he can’t tell the difference LOL
    Last edited by Cobalt60; 12-10-2018 at 11:25 AM.
    "Is there anyone on this ship, who even remotely, looks like Satan?" -- James Kirk, U.S.S. Enterprise.

  8. #18
    ^^ this brings up an interesting question:
    the special editions came out in the late 90's when everyone-and-their-uncle was releasing "Director's Cut" versions of their films.
    the "Director's Cut" was a staple of late-90's home video sales.

    but, at the time, GL didn't actually "direct" 2/3 of his trilogy. he was NOT the "Director" of ESB and ROTJ.
    so he couldn't LEGALLY call his offerings a "Director's Cut".

    he has ALWAYS claimed "they're MY moo-vies" -- (therefore he could change them, any way HE pleased) -- simply because he "owns" them.

    ((like Ted Turner owns the entire MGM catalog ; like Micheal Jackson owned the old Beatles Songs;....
    ...but does Ted Turner REALLY have the right, to CHANGE those old movies?
    ...did Micheal Jackson have the right, to CHANGE those old Beatles Songs?))

    ((the Government of France "OWNS" the Mona Lisa. does this give them the right to CHANGE the Mona Lisa?
    simply because they OWN it?))





    hmmmm...

    this begs a question (or two):

    (a) last I checked, ESB was still "directed by Irvin Kershner".
    did GL really have the right to CHANGE another Director's Work? simply because he OWNS that director's work?

    is it "Ethical" in Hollywood, for GL to make his OWN "director's cut", when he did NOT direct this film in the first place?
    (like Ted Turner owns "Gone With The Wind"? like the Government of France owns the Mona Lisa?
    does this mean he can now CHANGE "Gone With The Wind"?? does this mean they can CHANGE the Mona Lisa??)

    --> would this be "Ethical"??

    and

    (b) can you guys think of ANY other example, in ANY other artform, where this shit actually happens? LOL
    where the "owner" of a work of Art, makes CHANGES to a work of Art, simply because he "owns" it?

    (be it "music" copyright; movie copyright; or ANY form of "ownership", to a painting/sculpture/statue, or ANY other work of art)?
    does this actually HAPPEN in Real Life?? -- (outside of GL's Personal Sandbox?) -- where the "owner" of a respected piece, has made changes to that respected piece, simply BECAUSE he "owns" it?

    --> are there ANY other examples??





    -discuss-
    Last edited by Cobalt60; 12-10-2018 at 10:49 AM.
    "Is there anyone on this ship, who even remotely, looks like Satan?" -- James Kirk, U.S.S. Enterprise.

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Cobalt60 View Post
    ^^ this brings up an interesting question:
    the special editions came out in the late 90's when everyone-and-their-uncle was releasing "Director's Cut" versions of their films.
    the "Director's Cut" was a staple of late-90's home video sales.

    but, at the time, GL didn't actually "direct" 2/3 of his trilogy. he was NOT the "Director" of ESB and ROTJ.
    so he couldn't LEGALLY call his offerings a "Director's Cut".

    he has ALWAYS claimed "they're MY moo-vies" -- (therefore he could change them, any way HE pleased) -- simply because he "owns" them.

    ((like Ted Turner owns the entire MGM catalog ; like Micheal Jackson owned the old Beatles Songs;....
    ...but does Ted Turner REALLY have the right, to CHANGE those old movies?
    ...did Micheal Jackson have the right, to CHANGE those old Beatles Songs?))

    ((the Government of France "OWNS" the Mona Lisa. does this give them the right to CHANGE the Mona Lisa?
    simply because they OWN it?))





    hmmmm...

    this begs a question (or two):

    (a) last I checked, ESB was still "directed by Irvin Kershner".
    did GL really have the right to CHANGE another Director's Work? simply because he OWNS that director's work?

    is it "Ethical" in Hollywood, for GL to make his OWN "director's cut", when he did NOT direct this film in the first place?
    (like Ted Turner owns "Gone With The Wind"? like the Government of France owns the Mona Lisa?
    does this mean he can now CHANGE "Gone With The Wind"?? does this mean they can CHANGE the Mona Lisa??)

    --> would this be "Ethical"??

    and

    (b) can you guys think of ANY other example, in ANY other artform, where this shit actually happens? LOL
    where the "owner" of a work of Art, makes CHANGES to a work of Art, simply because he "owns" it?

    (be it "music" copyright; movie copyright; or ANY form of "ownership", to a painting/sculpture/statue, or ANY other work of art)?
    does this actually HAPPEN in Real Life?? -- (outside of GL's Personal Sandbox?) -- where the "owner" of a respected piece, has made changes to that respected piece, simply BECAUSE he "owns" it?

    --> are there ANY other examples??





    -discuss-
    WELL SAID Cobalt60! WELL SAID! The Special Edition Films were a travesty! Under no circumstances did his "revisions" do any sort of homage to the films!

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Cobalt60 View Post
    he has ALWAYS claimed "they're MY moo-vies" -- (therefore he could change them, any way HE pleased) -- simply because he "owns" them.
    George has every “right” to alter his property as he wishes. SW was all his— and he owes his collaborators nothing, since they were all hired employees; As talented as his collaborators were, no one did the job out of the kindness of their heart… But just like George has every right to do as he wishes with his property— I have every “right” to reject/criticize/protest/mock his changes to these films as a costumer. This has nothing to do with ethics, and everything to do with standards.

    (Frankly, I don’t mind the environment-enhancements of the SE, where the scope of the vistas are improved upon— both visually and technically, and doesn’t change the narrative and tone of its original story. I wished he had enhanced the Hoth and Dagobah environments; just an extra 10-15 seconds would have been enough and enriched these worlds by so much.)

    About Leia ’s memories of her (real) mother: It makes absolutely zero sense for Leia to have confused memories of her foster mother with her biological mother. The fact that Luke asked her memories of her “real” mother, already implies that Leia has always known she was adopted; and by that implication, she would have known that Amidala died when she was born (if we’re to go with the ROTS version of Amidala’s demise). So if one is to accept ROTS and George messing up/not caring to align basic logic connecting The Prequel to the OT, how can Leia be referring to memories of her foster mother when Luke was so specific about memories of her “real” mother…??? George f*cked up and people are scrambling to do mental gymnastics to justify such sloppy storytelling. (I do love the excuse that Leia remembers Amidala through the Force: The Force is the answer to everything— like Obama to some Americans LOL)

    This is one of the many many many reasons why the much-maligned TPM works so well for me as a strong addition to the saga, and why AOTC and ROTS are EU-afterthoughts: George cared and was passionate when creating TPM— and it shows. He simply couldn’t care less by the time of AOTC. And by the time of ROTS, it’s literally nothing more than "faster and more intense”, and doesn’t even connect to the OT in a logical sense. He seemed to just wanted to get it over with. And I don’t blame him one bit.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •